Article published in:
On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 315–347

Modal particles indexing common ground in two different registers

| Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark
This article examines how the two Swedish modal particles ju (approx. ‘as both you and I think/know’) and väl (approx. ‘this is an appropriate description of the circumstances’) are used to index different aspects of common ground (Diewald & Fischer 1998; Diewald 2006; Fischer 2007). It addresses the question of what aspects of common ground are indexed by these modal particles and how the indexical information about the argumentative situation is stored: Is it encoded in some kind of construction (Goldberg 1995) or is it organized in frames (Fillmore 2006 [1982])? By analyzing the indexical function of modal particles in terms of different aspects of common ground (Clark 1996) in two different registers, namely caregiver–child interaction and teenager interaction, we suggest that these aspects can be thought of as a sub-frame common ground within a communicative background frame (Fischer 2006); the aspects of common ground to which the speakers appeal to in different situations are organized and stored in the sub-frame.
Keywords: modal particles, Swedish, common ground, register, construction grammar
Published online: 24 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.06alm
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Pons Bordería, Salvador & Kerstin Fischer
2021. Using discourse segmentation to account for the polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics 173 ► pp. 101 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 may 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Aijmer, K.
(1977) Partiklarna ju och väl. [The particles ju and väl]. Nysvenska studier, 57, 205–216. Uppsala: Adolf Noreen-sällskapet,Google Scholar
(1996) Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences, 18, 393–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alm, M.
(2012) Why not Swedish modal particles? In J. Brandtler, D. Håkansson, S. Huber, & E. Klingvall (Eds.), Discourse and pragmatics: A festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár (pp. 29–52). Lund University.Google Scholar
Bergman, B.
(2007) Ordens ursprung: etymologisk ordbok över 2200 ord och uttryck. [The origin of the words: etymological dictionary of 2200 words and expressions]. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H.
(1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2006) Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 403–425). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2008) Die Funktion “idiomatischer“ Konstruktionen bei Grammatikal­i­sierungs­prozessen: illustriert am Beispiel der Modalpartikel ruhig . [The function of “idiomatic” constructions in grammaticalization processes: Using the example of ruhig ]. In A. Stefanowitsch & K. Fischer (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 33–57). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Fischer, K.
(1998) Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. [On the discourse and modal function of the particles aber, auch, doch and ja in instruction dialogues]. Linguistica, 38, 75–99.Google Scholar
Doherty, M.
(1985) Epistemische Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J.
(2006 [1982]) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2000) From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 427–447). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2007) Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In A. Fetzer & K. Fischer (Eds.), Lexical markers of common grounds (pp. 47–66). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2014) Discourse markers. In K.P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 271–294). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., & Alm, M.
(2013) A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In L. Degand, B. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 47–87). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A.
(1989) Beschreibungsebenen für Partikelbedeutungen. [Description levels for particle meanings]. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln (pp. 305–317). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hellquist, E.
(1970) Svensk etymologisk ordbok. [Swedish etymological dictionary]. 3rd edition. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Hentschel, E.
(1986) Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: Ja, doch, halt und eben. [The function and history of German particles: ja, doch, halt and eben ]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, K.
(1991) Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte. The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German (pp. 163–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J.
(2008) Tur och ordning: Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. [According to turn: Introduction to Swedish discourse grammar.] Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nilsson, J.
(2005) Adverb i interaktion. [Adverbs in interaction]. Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
Saari, M.
(1979) Om adverben ju, nog och väl . [On the adverbs ju, nog and väl ]. In Festskrift till Björn Pettersson 29.12.1979. (pp. 219–243). Tammerfors: Skrifter utgivna vid institutionen för filologi II vid Tammerfors Universitet, nordisk filologi. 4.Google Scholar
(1995) “Jo, nu kunde vi festa nog”: Synpunkter på svenskt språkbruk i Sverige och Finland. [PRT we knew how to party PRT]. Folkmålstudier, 36, 75–108.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S., Richthoff, U., & Andersson, A.-B.
(1993) Strömqvist’s and Richthoff’s corpora: A guide to longitudinal data from four Swedish children. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 66.Google Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E.
(Eds.) (1999) Svenska Akademiens grammatik IV. Satser och meningar. [The Grammar of the Swedish Academy. IV. Clauses and sentences]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
Thurmair, M.
(1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. [Modal particles and their combinations]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weydt, H.
(2006) What are particles good for? In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 205–217). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wirdenäs, K.
(2002) Ungdomars argumentation: Om argumentationstekniker i gruppsamtal. [Teenager’s argumentation: About argumentation techniques in group discussions]. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H.
(2006) A dynamic approach to discourse particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 133–148). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Online dictionaries

SAOB Svenska Akademiens ordbok
Extensive Dictionary of the Swedish Academy]: http://​g3​.spraakdata​.gu​.se​/saob/
NE Nationalencyklopedins svenska ordbok
Nationalencyklopedin’s Swedish Dictionary] (only available with subscription): http://​www​.ne​.se​/info​/privat